Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  July 31, 2012 5:00pm-8:00pm EDT

5:00 pm
doing so will not only make us safer as a nation, it will help ensure that america's work force is better prepared for tomorrow's job market. and tomorrow is just around the corner. i want to conclude my remar -- i want to conclude my remarks with something one of our colleagues, mike enzi, introduced. he calls it the 80-20 rule. he and senator ted kennedy were able to accomplish so much as the -- prior to ted's death when they were the two senior leaders on the senate committee on health, education, labor, and pensions committee. and i said to senator enzi, i said, how come the two of you, very different people, one democrat, one republican, are able to get so much done? ted and i agree on about 80% of what needs to be done on most issues and we disagree on ther to%. somewhere along the way, he said, we just decided to focus
5:01 pm
on the 80% on which we agree, said set the other 20% aside to another day. the cybersecurity legislation that we're debating here this seek an 80-20 bill. i think it is worth asking, is it worth passing a bill at that achieves only 80% of what we want to do or even only 70% of what we want to do? to that i would say, well, compared to what? compared to doing nothing? compared to zero? given all that's stake in today's dangerous world, you bet it is worthwhile. so let's get it done. like many of my colleagues who worked on this legislation for year, i welcome the opportunity this week to legislate, to legislate on an issue of great importance to our nation, to offer our amendments, to debate them, to defend them, to vote on them, make this bill better by doing so. and in the end, adopt this bill, as amended, by a bipartisan
5:02 pm
margin. a lot of people in this country of ours question today whether we're still able to set aside our partisan differences and other differences when the stakes are high and some in the political -- and summon the political will to do what's bet for america. let's show them by our actions this week that, yes, we can. let's seize the day. carpe diem. with that, i yield my time. mr. presidenmr. schumer: mr. pr? the presiding officer: the senator from new york. mr. schumer: first i want to salute my colleague from delaware. we have a number of people in this body who will take on the very tough issues, issues that can only succeed when there is bipartisan agreement but that are deep and complicated and take day after day, week after week, even month after month of effort. and there aren't many who can craft that type of legislation, and the senator from delaware is one of them.
5:03 pm
he did it on the postal bill. he's doing it here on cybersecurity and i believe on both of them he will have ultimate success, and we thank you -- we thank him for his good work and now, mr. president, i'd like to rise to discuss the cybersecurity bill. i'm very hopeful that we will pass a bill that will find a good and workable balance, one certainly that ensures that our critical infrastructure has the most effective countermeasures to prevent cyber attack but one that will also encourage our dynamic technology industry to continue to innovate, protect freedom of expression, and the privacy on the internet. let me remind my colleagues that the internet was originally developed as a way for universities, governments, and companies to collaborate on research and other projects. the whole purpose of the internet was meant to stimulate the open exchanges of ideas.
5:04 pm
as a result, it has changed the world. we've seen it. in egypt, in russia, in china, we have seen the internet, people's ability to communicate unfettered by government or other strong forces, create huge amounts of power -- good power, positive powerment now, just ask the entrepreneurs who developed a whole new way of developing products and selling services about how the internet was made to stimulate the open exchange of ideas? it has given the opportunity for someone with an idea to take that idea and turn it into a business because it so reduces the transaction costs of doing some of the just ask the inventors and creators who foster new means of expression, allowing to us communicate in realtime efficiently and inexpensively with colleagues all around the world.
5:05 pm
i like to use -- i am a busy fellow, i love the work i do, and i like to use it as efficiently as possible. the fact that i can have a lap ittop or an -- the fact that i can have a laptop or an i pad in the car, in the old days you couldn't do that. it's amazing. it is amazing how it has improved our efficiency. it's sort of in a certain sense adam smith's dream because it reduces transaction costs and allows us to focus effectively on produce being the kinds of things that people want and need. in short, our cyber world is one we could have never imagined 30 years ago. it is both simple -- it can be accessed through a few key strokes or screen touches -- and yet it is enormously complex in its infrastructure. mr. president, we have to do
5:06 pm
everything we can to protect that free and open access. that's the theme of my speech today. although we also, of course, have to protect the critical infrastructure behind it. now, we're all aware of the national security risks if we don't do a cyber bill. many of us have sat up in the visitors' center in a secure room and heard leaders of our military and intelligence agencies tell us that the greatest threat to america is an attack on our critical infrastructure, a cyber attack on our critical infrastructure. in many of their estimation even more dangerous than terrorists. hackers broke into the pentagon's joint strike fighter project stealing electronic-related chem matterics. it is not hard to imagine a scenario where a nuclear power plant is broken into and havoc
5:07 pm
is wreaked. nor is it hard to see a scenario where iran attempts to learn some of our nuclear secrets. so it is very important to deal with the critical infrastructure piece and, mr. president, let me commend you for your hard work on -- in this area, along with the senator from arizona, and we're still hoping and praying that you guys can come to an agreement along with the help of many. i know senator mikulski has been very active in this and many other of my colleagues. but your leadership has been exemplary as well, and i would apply the same words to you that i applied to the senator from delaware before in terms of working on complex, difficult projects and moving forward with them. anyway, so important -- very important we protect our infrastructure. but, at the same time -- and this is what makes the legislation even more difficult
5:08 pm
-- we have to be aware of the risk to the -- to a critical part of our economy if we don't do it right. if we don't do it carefully, if we don't do it thoughtfully and if we don't balance the need to protect infrastructure with the legitimate rights of the freedom of the internet and privacy. and, mr. president, to be perfectly frank, i have a big dog in this fight. you see, the sill congress valley may have given us the semiconductor, but new york city, in my opinion, will be the birthplace of the next great generation of internet giants. new york entrepreneurs started foursquare and tumbler, etsi and kick-starter code academy is straining the next generation of entrepreneurs. venture capital is flocking to new york to help these start-ups. for the first time we're getting engineers and scientist whose want to be in new york.
5:09 pm
and we're still not at the level of silicon valley but we're probably number two in the country in this regard. like all new yorkers we want to be number one at some point. what's more, mr. president, the existing internet giants -- facebook and going to and twitter -- have all opened major offices in new york city. google has over 3,000 people i was proud to be at the opening of facebook and they're so happy with their office, they're expanding its role already. these companies know the talent and energy that are unique to new york, and they do not want to miss out on the next great idea that, as i said, is likely to come from new york. and these ideas are not just important for new york but for america. internet and tech companies around the country have ushered in a new era of change. they've made our world a drastically and dramatically different place than it was even
5:10 pm
ten years ago, a better world, a more open world, a more productive world. but one thing remains the same: we do not have a coherent national, comprehensive strategy to protect the critical networks that power our everyday lives, our homes, businesses and commuter computers. it is akin to protecting the taj mahal are a chain link and bike lock. these systems protect the electric grid,ure e-mail accounts. the bill goes a long way in setting principles and programs that will make these vulnerable networks safer. but, mr. president, there are some parts of the bill i fear go a step too far in the name of security over privacy. there's got to be a balance. the same minds who have given us the great internet innovations of the 21st century have told me, convinced me, educated me that we cannot cede too much
5:11 pm
power to one side of this equation. we all know that in this very complex cyber world, we do give up some of our privacy. but unabated authority to stifle innovation in the name of cybersecurity is a bridge too far. that's why i am happy to cosponsor the amendment of my colleague of minnesota, al franken. he's become an expert on trying to figure out how we can preserve the dynamism, the effectiveness, the efficiency of the internet but at the same time preserve our privacy. and as more and more of our economic lifeblood is shifted into the cyber world, we have an obligation to ensure the infrastructure that validates credit card purchases and directs planes and electricity is well-protected against a cyber attack. it is not a secret that people want to disrupt our way of life much it is easy to imagine a world where terrorists attempt
5:12 pm
to take control of railroad switches, traffic lights, to cause incredible disruption in our everyday lives. however, we must make sure that in protecting what we have, we don't stifle innovation, we don't trample on people's privacy rights. we have to leave room for the creation, from the next steve jobs, bill gates or whomever while protecting the security the average middle-class father the baileys feel when they go online to buy birthday presents for their condition. we must write the balance to preserve the economic viability of the internet. otherwising there will be no critical infrastructure to protect, but we must protect privacy rights, and i think the franken amendment -- and i commend it to my colleagues, a lot of work has gone into it -- puts the balance in the right place. i hope, as we move forward on this bill either now or in september when we return, that we will get broad, bipartisan support for that amendment
5:13 pm
because it enables us to in a certain sense have our cake and teet, too. protect our infrastructure but at the same time protect, nurture our creativity, the openness of the internet, and protect our privacy. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. and i note the absence of a remain quo. no, i do not note the absence of a quorum i simply yield the floor, mr. president. mr. nelson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from nebraska. mr. nelson:man, the worst drought in 50 years has hit nebraska and the entire midwest hard. every single one of nebraska's 93 counties is in a state of severe drought, and if you look at the chart here, you can see that the drought is throughout the midwest, into the middle
5:14 pm
east, down into the southeast, down into texas and west, even drought conditions in hawaii and maybe abnormally dry up in the northern part of alaska. the usda has already declared more than 40 nebraska counties as natural disaster areas. if you take a look, you can see the corn fields that are just completely dirt fields now, pasture that is nothing more than dry grass where there's still grass and dirt. the bean -- soybean fields are decimated and corn is in many areas not only dwarfed in its growth but is not producing ears of corn. the bone-dry conditions continue
5:15 pm
to damage corn, soybeans, pastures, and rangelands even as we speak. just last week a small blaze quickly spread over the parched land in north central nebraska. it rapidly grew into a fire that consumed tens of thousands of acres, 14 houses and forced many others from their homes. nebraso have had hardworking firefighters from our state and others to put out those flames. hopefully we won't need to utilize their talents in the near future. now what nebraska needs is disaster relief, and we're not alone if you look at this chart, you'll see that a good part of the rest of the country needs disaster relief as well. unfortunately, the disaster programs in the 2008 farm bill have already expired, and while the senate passed a five-year farm bill in june, the house isn't even expected to take
5:16 pm
action on it. the senate's five-year farm bill strengthens and improves the 2008 farm bill, particularly the natural disaster relief provisions. it beefs up and rebill taeuts livestock disaster programs. it provides tools to help reduce fire risk and improve forest health. it improves and increases access to crop insurance to protect against future natural disasters. it authorizes direct and guaranteed loans for recovery from wildfires and drought. and the list goes on. all important programs necessary to deal with this disaster that we're facing in our country today. the senate's five-year farm bill makes necessary upgrades to the policies in the 2008 farm bill to help americans recover from natural disasters, and it does it without digging the country
5:17 pm
deeper into debt. the senate passed this bipartisan farm bill in june, but the house won't take action on it. plus the house is expected to move a separate bill. essentially a one-year extension of the old 2008 farm bill. a one-year extension of outdated and inefficient policies is not adequate. it's irresponsible. we need the substantial reforms in the senate's five-year farm bill now. a one-year extension of current policy does nothing to help those who need the farm bill and its disaster relief the most. when you can do better, you should do better. you know, congress passed a five-year farm bill in 2008, 2002, 1996, 1990, 1985, and you
5:18 pm
get the picture. just about every five years between 1965 and today. surely the house can pass a proper five-year farm bill. and the need to is all the more apparent in the face of the nationwide drought. with the disaster relief provisions in the 2008 farm bill having expired on september 30 last year, 2011. now instead of passing a five-year extension, the farm bill that they've held a lost -- instead of passing the five-year extension in the farm bill, they have held a lot of political messaging votes and they put off doing what should have been done at the very beginning. and now while america is getting hit by these droughts and fires and now while american farmers and ranchers don't have the disaster relief because there's no farm bill, the house is merely going to pass a one-year
5:19 pm
extension of current policies. they want to buy some time, kick the can down the road. well, now it's time for the house to do its job. do what's right for the country. don't take the easy way out. show the american people that you remember why you're here and what you need to do and can actually do it. americans don't want a flimsy-one year extension of late policies. americans with an independent, modern and economical five-year farm bill that cuts federal spending. that's what the senate gave the house. that's what the house agriculture committee gave the house to work with: its own five-year plan. sure there are real differences between the senate bill and the house ag bill, but there should be room for consensus. so the house must pass their bill or pass our bill. but don't pass a one-year extension of outdated policies that won't work for modern
5:20 pm
american agriculture. don't try to just coast along without a five-year farm bill. the lack of a 2012 farm bill will fail to provide certainty to farmers and ranchers and lead to higher prices for all consumers at the grocery store. and this is on top of the already predicted 3% to 4% rise in food prices caused by the drought. we don't want that, and america deserves better. nebraska's farmers and our american farmers and ranchers and all those affected by the drought, they're depending on congress to do our job right and fairly debate this issue. so don't kick the can down the road. i urge the house to bring a five-year farm bill to the house floor as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president, and i yield the floor. mr. lieberman: mr. president,
5:21 pm
i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
5:22 pm
5:23 pm
5:24 pm
5:25 pm
5:26 pm
5:27 pm
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
quorum call:
5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: thank you, mr. president. i rise to continue the discussion of cybersecurity legislation and particularly s. 3414, which is the pending business before the senate, which is the cybersecurity act of 2012, a bipartisan piece of legislation to deal with an
5:33 pm
urgent national crisis. mr. president, i wanted first again to speak to our colleagues about the seriousness of the threat. i think sometimes that because most people haven't experienced the consequences of a cyber attack and most are not aware of the constant cyber threat going on, moving money from bank accounts, stealing industrial secrets, because frankly a lot of the businesses that are the victims of the thefts don't want to acknowledge them or announce them for fear of exposing their own lack of adequate cyber defenses but also a kind of general embarrassment. and yet, we now know as a public matter, whether it's sunk into consciousness among most of the
5:34 pm
american people that some great companies that are very tech savvy, cyber savvy have been the victims of cyber attacks. sony was, r.s.a., google and others that have come momentarily to public attention. but what this has meant has been i think unclear to people so that -- and it may, in fact, be unclear to many of the leaders of our -- of the private corporations that control so much of our critical cyber infrastructure. in america, 80% to 85% of the critical infrastructure is privately owned. that's the american way. that's the way it ought to be. but it means that when the private sector owns critical infrastructure, which can in this new world of ours and will
5:35 pm
be a target of hostile action, enemy attack, then we have got to create a partnership with the private owners of this critical infrastructure to raise our defenses, because it's not just their businesses that they're defending. it's the security of the united states. a chief information officer at one of the businesses that owns a lot of a part of our critical infrastructure said to me at one point that it's hard to get the attention of the c.e.o. to this problem. the c.e.o. is balancing a lot of considerations, looking at quarterly annual budgets, quarterly profits. for the average c.e.o., the threat of cyber attack is distant. for the average chief information officer, it's not so distant. as the majority leader pointed out earlier today, i think it may help to look at something
5:36 pm
very difficult to look at, which is what's happening in india today, where the power system has collapsed for hundreds of millions of people. now, that is a breakdown as far as we know, and i believe that's what is the fact. that's a breakdown in the -- in parts of the electric grid. but -- and let me give another example. last year in connecticut, we had a very serious early storm, early winter storm where there were still a lot of leaves on the trees, the branches were heavy, the -- a lot of the trees fell and they took out a lot of power lines in our state, and a lot of people were without power for days and days and days and days. public buildings were used as shelters for the homeless. elderly people particularly were affected.
5:37 pm
food spoiling in the refrigerator. the lack of lights in their dwelling, et cetera. now, just imagine for a moment if that was not the result of a weather event but of a cyber attack, because cyber systems are controlling the electric power grid, and i believe it's vulnerable. i think the same of a lot of other cyber systems that control political infrastructure in our financial system. the computer systems that we depend on for the movement of money from one account to the other, the direct deposits we do, the money that's in our accounts, the billions of dollars that move between financial institutions every day. what would happen to our country if they, those systems were knocked out, or wall street, the stock exchanges were knocked out?
5:38 pm
and again, as i said earlier, i think about the real nightmare situation, which is a dam controlled by a cyber system is penetrated by an enemy who opens the dam and unleashes water, torrents of water that knock out communities in the path of that water and kills a lot of people. that's all unfortunately the age that we live in and the vublght that we have -- and the vulnerability that we have. there was a story in the post. i believe i have talked about it before in this debate, but i repeat it because it was jarring. there was a young man on the other side of the world sitting at his computer at home, and he -- with nothing special. he was smart, computer savvy. he broke into the computer control system, the cyber system controlling a small water
5:39 pm
utility in texas. he had the ability to disrupt the functioning of that entire utility. he didn't do it, thank god. he posted online what he had done. a warning at least, perhaps a bit of bragging that he was able to do it, but think about an enemy that had hostile intent against the united states who had launched similar attacks against several small utilities around the country or large utilities, for that matter. mr. president, last week, the people who are the real experts on cyberspace gathered in las vegas at the annual -- this is an interesting title -- black hat computer security conference, and they issued yet more warnings. the conference opened with a very strong warning from the -- from sean henry, who until, well, recently was the assistant director of the f.b.i. in charge
5:40 pm
of the f.b.i.'s considerable cyber programs. some people called sean henry the nation's top cyber cop. he said at the conference, the black cat conference, the adversary knows that if you want to harm civilized society, take their water away, do away with their electricity. there are terrorist groups that are online now calling for the use of cyber as a weapon. now, mr. henry went on, people will not truly get this until they see the real implications of a cyber attack. for example, people knew about osama bin laden prior to 9/11, but that awareness rose by several orders of magnitude after the attacks. mr. henry, sean henry, former director of cyber programs at the f.b.i., concluded i believe
5:41 pm
something like that will have to happen in the cyber world before people truly get it, end of quote. well, obviously, we all hope and pray not, but at this moment in this debate in the senate's consideration of the cybersecurity act, as a lot of, oh, kind of inflexible positions are being taken, people are not willing to come together across ideological and political divides to deal with a problem and a threat that faces us all, i fear that mr. henry may well have been right. so, mr. president, i urge my colleagues don't run the risk that it will take a cyber 9/11 to bring us rushing back here to adopt cybersecurity legislation.
5:42 pm
it doesn't take much to imagine what will happen if we are the victims of a major cyber attack. minor cyber attacks are happening every day. a major -- major cyber thefts are occurring regularly in america every day. let's heed the warning and come together over special interests to meet a national security interest and challenge. i thank the chair, i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
5:43 pm
5:44 pm
5:45 pm
quorum call:
5:46 pm
5:47 pm
5:48 pm
5:49 pm
5:50 pm
5:51 pm
5:52 pm
5:53 pm
5:54 pm
5:55 pm
a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from florida. mr. nelson: mr. president, i want to address --. the presiding officer: the senate is in a quorum call, senator. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. i request consent that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. nelson: mr. president, may i be recognized. the presiding officer: the senator from florida is recognized. mr. nelson: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i just started to launch into this because there is such an important subject that is looming over the country right now, and the congress can do something about it, and that is the possibility of cyber attack. we have had this discussed by a number of people in very high,
5:56 pm
responsible positions, and the threat is real, and what the threat means to all of us in our everyday lives is the fact that electrical systems could be shut down, water systems could be shut down, the banking system could be shut down, sewer systems could go awry, and you can go on and on, mr. president, as to the possibility of what is happening. and here for months we have been stymied from passing anything here because of a disagreement in the business community which
5:57 pm
is going to be one of the main recipients of the potential cyber attack. now, i will choose my words very carefully as a member of the senate intelligence committee and say this potential attack is real. and it's real not only from rogue players but also some state actors. and we need to get this legislation up and going. and i am most encouraged to think that we are at a position that we're going to get agreement, that the chairman and the vice chairman of our intelligence committee are going to come together in an
5:58 pm
agreement, and we need to pass this this week, because this is deadly serious. now, i just want to refer to a letter that has been made public by the commander of cyber command, a four-star general, keith alexander. he is also the head of the national security agency. and he has done a remarkable job , and i just want to point out the letter that he has sent dated today to the majority leader imploring the senate to move, and i will submit this letter for the record instead of reading it. but he points out -- and this
5:59 pm
is somebody who knows because this is the head of the national security agency. so, mr. president, i want bring that to the attention of the senate, and whatever disagreements that have been over the concern of the department of homeland security being the interfacing agency, those disagreements can be worked out. the national security agency which almost all of us have enormous confidence in is going to be directly involved, and it is my hope and i'm expressing optimism that we're going to get this legislation out of here and get it down to the house. and if they can't pass it before this august recess, at least we
6:00 pm
can have some items over the august recess start to be informally conferenced, to iron out any differences between the house and the senate. mr. president, i'm actually waiting for senator durbin who wanted to speak on another subject. and until he comes, i am going to go ahead and start. and this is over the recent death of os -- os waldo paya, a cuban dissident and his untimely death in cuba over a supposed automobile accident. the cuban people, indeed all free, loving people of the world
6:01 pm
have recently lost a great advocate for freedom. and he was someone that was in peaceful opposition to the tyranny that is on the island of cuba. oswaldo paya died in a car crash on sunday, july 22. he was just 60 years old. another cue pwapbt dissident -- cuban dissident harold sapayo was also killed in the accident and two pure peen politicians, one -- and two european politicians, one from spain and one from sweden were injured. paya was one of cuban's best-known dissidents. he pushed for civil and human rights. he pushed for an end to one
6:02 pm
one-party rule. he pushed for freedom for political prisoners. and he pushed for support for private businesses. and in 2002, his vallara project delivered more than 24,000 verifiable signatures in support of these ideals to the cuban government. it was the largest petition drive in cuban history. and paya, he bravely led this initiative at great risk to himself, to his loved ones, and to his colleagues. and for his work, he received the european parliament's sakharov price for freedom of thought in 2002, and he was nominated for the nobel peace prize. mr. president, the reason i am
6:03 pm
bringing this up other than pointing out that planet earth has lost a friend for freedom is to note that the circumstances of the car accident are the topic of some debate. cuban officials insist that the driver was speeding and that he lost control and he hit a tree. but others are saying that witnesses saw another vehicle hit mr. paya's vehicle and drive it off the road. paya's daughter, rosa, says that she holds the cuban government responsible. she's told cnn that "we think
6:04 pm
it's not an accident. they wanted to do harm and then ended up killing my father." that's a direct quote. paya's loved ones and the cuban people and the international community deserve to have all the facts surrounding this tragic event examined and put out in the public. and that's why i've introduced along with a number of our colleagues s. res. 525 which honors the life, legacy and exemplary leadership of oswaldo paya. this resolution calls on the cuban government to allow a third-party investigation into the accident. i urge the senate to unanimously pass this resolution. this request comes on the heels of other disturbing news out of cuba. we've learned that more than 40
6:05 pm
pro-democracy activists were detained after paya's funeral last tuesday. the reason? they dared to shout "freedom" during the ceremony. and reports also indicate that several of the dissidents were severely beaten. these peaceful activists are only honoring one of their own, and it ended up -- they ended up as victims of an authoritarian regime. so now more than ever before the united states must continue policies that promote the fundamental principles of political freedom, democracy, and human rights, all of which oswaldo paya devoted his life. and senator durbin and i have already mentioned that i was awaiting your leadership to
6:06 pm
speak out on the issue because we're quite concerned that the castro regime continues to hold an american hostage. alan gross. and once again another senator rise to urge the cuban regime in the strongest possible terms to immediately and unconditionally release him. we will never forget paya's passion and dedication to freedom and faith. and the least the regime can do is to release alan gross. mr. president, i yield the floor, and i thank my colleague, senator durbin, and the senator from rhode island to be here to speak out on this issue. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: mr. president, i am here this afternoon to
6:07 pm
speak about the cybersecurity act of 2012, the measure that is on the senate floor right now. this important bill addresses a serious and immediate threat to our nation's security. i served four years on the intelligence committee during which i worked hard to understand the cybersecurity threat. i helped senator mikulski and senator snowe write the senate intelligence committee cybersecurity report. i am the chairman of the judiciary subcommittee on crime and terror that has jurisdiction over cybersecurity. as i have explained before on the floor of the senate, a cyber threat against our nation, against our intellectual property, against our privacy and against our safety is vast and it is upon us. it is a national security threat. it is a national economic
6:08 pm
threat. we cannot afford to wait to pass legislation to respond to this threat. the leading national security experts in each party agree now -- now -- is the time to pass comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. the cybersecurity act is a strong, comprehensive bill that will make our nation safer. it will provide for the sharing of threat information among the government and private sector, and it will provide for the hardening, for the protection of the networks of the private companies that operate america's critical infrastructure that run our electric grid, that run our financial networks, that run our communications systems and the other infrastructure that is essential to conducting the day-to-day way of life that
6:09 pm
americans enjoy that is essential to our national security and to our economic well-being. the senate voted to proceed to this bill in a very broad bipartisan manner, 84 votes, as i recall. it has been disappointing in the wake of that that some elements within the business community are failing to cooperate, are failing to, for instance, provide constructive suggestions in areas where they have disagreement with this important legislation. indeed, some appear intent on just preventing the senate from passing legislation that would make us all safer. in some cases these interests are not negotiating to get a bill that protects their interests. they are blockading to stop a bill that will protect all of our interests. to put this blockade into context, consider the views of
6:10 pm
general keith alexander, director of the national security agency and commander of the united states cyber command. general alexander is the most senior and respected cybersecurity expert in our nation's military. he runs our two most technically sophisticated and skilled cyber operations. and today he wrote to the senate leadership, "the cyber threat facing the nation is real and de demands immediate action. we cannot afford delay. to be most protective in protecting against this threat to our national security, cybersecurity legislation should address both information sharing and core critical infrastructure partnering." the cybersecurity act addresses both of those issues: information sharing and core critical infrastructure hardening. it does what our military's
6:11 pm
leading cybersecurity expert says is necessary to be done to protect the nation. that then is the view of the leader of our military cyber warriors and cyber defenders based on both deep experience and access to the most deeply classified information held by the united states government. in contrast, industry arguments against cybersecurity legislation appear to have been developed with little or no awareness of the threat facing our nation. kevin mandia of the leading security firm has explained that "in over 90% of the cases we have responded to, government notification was required to alert the company that a security breach was underway. in our last 50 incidents, 48 of the victim companies learned they were breached from the federal bureau of investigation, the department of defense, or
6:12 pm
some other third party. the f.b.i.'s experience is similar. when the f.b.i. led national cyber investigave joint task force and forms -- informs an american corporation it has been hacked, nine times out of ten the f.b.i. reports the corporation had no idea. in operation aurora, which targeted numerous companies, only three out of the approximately 300 companies attacked were aware that they had been attacked before they were contacted by the government. these are not unique incidents. globally i have said, general alexander has said, and others have said that america is right now on the losing end of the largest illicit transfer of wealth in human history through cyber attack and through the
6:13 pm
theft of cyber attack of our intellectual property. so this is an industry-wide problem. even the u.s. chamber of commerce has been the completely unwitting victim of a long-term and extensive cyber intrusion. just last year the "wall street journal" reported that a group of hackers in china breached the computer defenses of the u.s. chamber, gained access to everything stored on its systems, including information about its three million members, and remained on the u.s. chamber of commerce's network for at least six months and possibly more than a year. the chamber only learned of the break-in when the f.b.i. told the group that servers in china were stealing its information. even after the chamber was notified and increased its cybersecurity, the article stated that the chamber continued to experience suspicious activity, including -- quote -- "a thermostat at a
6:14 pm
townhouse the chamber owns on capitol hill communicating with an internet address in china. a printer used by chamber executives spontaneously printing pages with chinese characters." and these are the people we're supposed to listen to about cybersecurity. a recent bloomberg news article makes clear that this was not an isolated incident. it describes how hackers linked to china's army have been seen on the networks of a vast array of american businesses. the article describes how what started as assaults on military and defense contractors have widened into a rash of attacks from which no corporate entity is safe. among other cyber attacks, bloomberg news reported, the networks of major oil companies have been harvested for seismic maps charting oil reserves. saves work if you can steal that information rather than str to do it yourself. patent law firms have been hacked for their clients' trade
6:15 pm
secrets. again, free access to valuable information. and investment banks have been hacked into for market analysis that might impact the tkpwhroebgt ventures of -- the global ventures of certain state-owned, foreign country-owned operations. after having been victimized repeatedly by cyber attacks and learned about them only when the government arrived to help them fix the problem, one would think that critical infrastructure operators and their representatives would be keenly aware of the urgent need for cybersecurity legislation. one would think that they might come to this issue with some sense of humility based on the patent inadequacy of their defenses. and one would think that elected officials sworn to the protection of this country might view with some caution, with
6:16 pm
some skepticism claims by folks who are hacked and penetrated virtually at will, usually without even knowing about it, that they can handle this just fine on their own. yet, industry opposition remains, even after the bill has been revised to include a very business-friendly voluntary, incentives-based approach to hardening up critical infrastructure that we all depend on. unfortunately, some colleagues can only hear the siren song of the industry lobbyists, even with plain and ominous national security threats staring them in the face. some in industry claim that a bill with only information sharing between the government and business would be sufficient and that protection of critical infrastructure isn't really necessary. this premise is wrong. statements to the temporary are
6:17 pm
simply false. such assertions have been repudiated by the people who we have charged with our nation's defense and who have been confirmed in these roles by the united states senate, who have repeatedly and as recently as today emphasized the need to protect critical infrastructure. these officials include secretary of defense panetta, director of national intelligence clapper, attorney general holder, secretary of homeland security napolitano and others. indeed, it's not just this administration that holds this view. a wide range of national security experts from previous republican administrations have emphasized the vulnerability of our critical infrastructure, including former director of national intelligence and n.s.a. director admiral mike mcconnell, former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff and former assistant attorney general, o.l.c. and now harvard law school professor jack goldsmith.
6:18 pm
these people know what they are talking about. they are not kidding around, and they deserve to be listened to. secretary chertoff has explained that the existing status quo is not generating adequate cybersecurity for our critical infrastructure. the marketplace, former secretary of homeland security chertoff has explained is likely to fail in investment to manage the risk across the breadth of networks on which our society relies. one example of this type of market failure is the decision of gas, electric power and water utility industries to forgo implementation of a powerful new encryption system to shield substations, pipeline compressors and other key infrastructures from cyber attack because of cost concerns. the cost in this case, it should be noted, would have been approximately $500 per vulnerable device, and they still wouldn't do it.
6:19 pm
the unwillingness of industry to adopt unnecessary standards is particularly troubling when you consider the scope and scale of the risks associated with a failure of critical infrastructure. the current electricity grid knockdown in india, leaving 600 million people without power, shows how bad things can get when critical infrastructure fails. the cause of this massive failure is not clear, and there is not yet any evidence that it was caused by a cyber attack, but it vividly illustrates the vulnerability of humankind when the critical infrastructure we depend on is knocked down and the terrible, terrible possible consequences of the failure of that critical infrastructure. the scale of the threat we face, the inadequacy, the plain inadequacy of current safeguards
6:20 pm
in the corporate sector and the consequences of failure in this critical infrastructure all join together to demand passage of comprehensive cybersecurity legislation. this is a matter of national security. it is our responsibility here in this building to do what we can to make the nation safer, regardless of any parochial interests. now is the time for us all to come together to get this important job done. i will conclude by saying we are tantalizingly close to having an agreement, and if people will take one last step forward to get that agreement, i think we can do it. if people back away because of the urging of parochial interests, we will fail at this opportunity. and i want to conclude by expressing my congratulations to the chairman of the committee on homeland security and his ranking member who have really
6:21 pm
worked hard on this and who have given an enormous amount. we began with a traditional government-run regulatory procedure, which is one that everybody is familiar with and has lots of checks and balances in it, but it is also a fairly mandatory and top-controlled procedure, and as a result of considerable discussions, bipartisan discussions, a new model emerged that allows the industry immense independence and control in this area. the regime that has been moved to is a huge step by the chairman and the ranking member, begins with a rule that originates in the private sector, has it vetted by experts from the private sector, has a national institute for science and technology review as well, ends up with the -- an away of
6:22 pm
government agencies approving or disapproving that, and whatever standard is ultimately approved by the government council of agencies, the industry companies are free to opt in or opt out of if they think that the regulation is unreasonable, they are at liberty to opt out entirely. and a comprehensive liability protection structure has been created to create an inducement for companies to participate, but it is a strong and powerful check on the standard-setting apparatus that ultimately the industry can choose to opt out if it is unreasonable. so an enormous step has been taken by the authors of the current bill towards a compromise. we need a step coming back the other way in order to get this
6:23 pm
done. i will yield the floor. i see my distinguished colleague from tennessee here. let me take one moment as i yield to express my appreciation to nick patterson of the department of justice who has been on my staff on assignment from the national security division for months and months and months working on this issue. today is his last day. i want to thank him for his work on this effort. i want to thank the department of justice for loaning me him and having them lose this valuable member of their national security division to help us develop this legislation. he has been a valuable part of an immensely capable team in my office led by steven lily that has gotten us to at least where i am today on this legislation. i thank the presiding officer, i thank the senator from tennessee for his courtesy, and i yield the floor. mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, the majority leader is coming to
6:24 pm
the floor at 6:30, and i recognize that when he comes, i will certainly yield to him. i would like also to thank nina immam who is sitting with me for two years who has been a fellow with the oak ridge national laboratory and has done a terrific job in energy and environmental work. mr. president, today is milton freedman -- the 100th anniversary of milton freedman's birthday, the nobel prize laureate. one of his most important statements, in my opinion, was this -- nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. it was reported by several media yesterday that governor mitt romney has taken the position that wind production tax credits should be allowed to expire at the end of the year. he must have known milton friedman's birthday was coming today. i wouldn't presume to speak for milton friedman, but i think he would applaud governor romney's position.
6:25 pm
it shows a seriousness about our fiscal problems in the united states. it's time to end a temporary tax credit that was put into law in 1992 when president george h.w. bush was in office and when milton friedman was only 80 years old. the wind production tax credit was a temporary tax break, taxpayer in 1992 to encourage wind power. we give wind developers a 2.2-cent credit for every -- cents for every kilowatt-hour of wind electricity produced. and now it's about to expire at the end of the year. it needs to be extended again, the developers say. nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. just one more time, they tell us, but it's an argument like this that's got us into the fiscal mess that we have as a nation. the united states of america, according to the joint tax committees, is spending
6:26 pm
$14 billion on subsidizing giant wind turbines over a five-year period, $6 billion of it is this production tax credit. that's why i am so pleased to see governor romney support the idea of more responsibility in our spending. we spend too much money in washington that we do not have, and it has to stop. there are many reasons we don't need this particular provision of the tax code. first, we can't afford it. $6 billion over five years. in addition to the $8 billion more that have come through grants. at a time when the federal government is borrowing more than 40 cents out of every dollar it spends, we can't afford that, particularly for what the energy secretary says is a mature technology. second, despite all the money, it produces a relatively small amount of electricity, only 2.2%
6:27 pm
of our electricity in the united states. we're a big country. we use 25% of all the energy in the world, all the electricity in the world. we're not going to operate our country through windmills. mr. president, i see the majority leader here, and i will be glad to defer to him at this -- third, the massive turbines often destroy the environment in the name of saving. some are 50-feet tall, blades as long as a football field, weighing seven tons, spinning 150 miles an hour. these aren't your grandma's windmills. they are three times as tall as the skyboxes at nieland stadium at the university of tennessee in novel. there is a new documentary movie about the disturbance in communities. and fourth, the stimulus grants that have helped to support it, $1 billion of it went to foreign companies. so, mr. president, the majority leader has come to the floor. i will forgo my remarks at this time so he will have a chance to
6:28 pm
say what he wishes to say. the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: it's my understanding that the distinguished senator from tennessee wishes to speak for about another ten minutes, is that right? mr. alexander: mr. president, five minutes would do it. mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent then that the period for debate only on s. 3414, the cybersecurity act, be extended until 6:40 p.m. today, and at 6:40, i be recognized. the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from tennessee. mr. alexander: mr. president, i thank the majority leader for his courtesy, and i will -- i'll continue. the fourth reason that we don't need to allow these production tax credits to be renewed is they haven't produced as many american jobs as was claimed. an american university study reported in 2009 that the first $1 billion of stimulus grants to win went to foreign manufacturing companies. what do we get in return for that? a puny amount of unreliable
6:29 pm
electricity generated mostly at night when we don't need it. i mentioned a little earlier that our country is a big country. it uses lots of electricity. the senator from rhode island was talking about the problems in india that are being caused by failure of the grid. we need large amounts of reliable baseload electricity to power this country. we're very fortunate that we have, through unconventional gas discoveries, found that we're going to have a lot of cheap gas in the united states, and we can make power plants from natural gas at a low cost and with very clean results in terms of the environment. nuclear power produces 70% of our carbon-free electricity, 20% of all of our electricity, it needs to be a part of our future mix. so should coal be. i was one of those who voted to require coal plants that operate in the future to have pollution control equipment on them.
6:30 pm
therefore, the sulfur, nitrogen and mercury after a few years for every operating coal plant in the united states will be clean except for carbon, and i am convinced that such programs as arpa-e in the energy department will find someday what i think is the holy grail of energy, which is a way to find a commercial use for the carbon that comes from coal plants. one of the companies that arpa-e invests research in, federal research dollars, is experimenting with using a biologicallic solution that turns from electrodes at night into oil, in other words, create a commercial energy use for the carbon that comes from our coal plants. and when that happens, the united states will have massive amounts of cheap, clean, reliable electricity and we won't be powering our country with windmills. even if they are appropriate, mr. president, on milton
6:31 pm
freedman's birthday, we should congratulate dr. friedman for his great career, for his wisdom in pointing out to us that nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program and applaud governor romney for recognizing that and calling for the end of this tax credit. we're coming upon something we call the fiscal cliff. i know the senator from colorado is very interested in this, spending a lot of time working in a bipartisan way to try to find a way to deal with it. my friend the foreign minister of australia has said to us, he's a great fan of the united states, he said to the united states that we're one budget agreement away from restoring our global preeminence. one budget agreement away from restoring our global preeminence. to get that agreement, what do we have to do? we have to deal with appropriations bills at the end of the year, we may have done that today or the leaders
6:32 pm
recommended it. we have to deal with welfare, the bush tax cuts, they and the following items expire at the end of the year, there are tax extenders that need to be renewed or not, there is something called the alternative minimum tax that started out as tax on rich people and now reaches millions of americans. there's appropriate payment to doctors who provide medical care, we call it the doc fix. there is the sequester that none of us likes. there's the problem of the debt limit and that assumes we don't renew the payroll tax cut and extended employment insurance. all this is happening at the end of the year. this is a good time to say to show some serious niece with dealing with the fiscal cliff we need to let a temporary tax break to encourage wind energy that was put in place in 1992 and costs the american people $6 billion over five years, we need to let it expire and let
6:33 pm
wind stand on its own. i would suggest that for that $6 billion we put $2 of every $3 we save into reducing the debt and $1 into energy research to see if we can find even more amounts of cheap, clean energy. so, mr. president, it's a good occasion to celebrate milton friedman's 100th anniversary of his birthday and a good occasion to applaud governor romney for following milton friedman,'s advice. nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. i thank the majority leader for his courtesy. i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
6:34 pm
quorum call:
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
6:37 pm
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
mr. reid: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. reid: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. reid: i ask consent that be terminated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, to say i'm disappointed is a tremendous understatement. this body is debating a measure that would prevent what national security experts on a bipartisan basis have called the most serious threat to our nation since the dawn of the nuclear age.
6:41 pm
senator mccain called this danger an existential threat to our nation. democrats were prepared to work on a bipartisan basis to pass this legislation. mr. president, i personally have convenessed many, many meetings going back two years ago to have a piece of legislation that we could pass through this body and in those two years' time things have gotten worse, not better as far as threats to our country. we've been prepared to address concerns raised by the private sector and i think it's only fair to say that for the leaders of the committees involved in this issue, there's been real cooperation, both by democrats and republicans. and i've said here on the senate floor many times that the work of senator lieberman and senator
6:42 pm
collins has been exemplary. the major part of this bill has been in their jurisdiction, dealing with homeland security. i am always envisioned that they've been prepared to engage in a robust debate and consider amendments designed to perfect the bill. i know that's how i feel and above all, i thought we had all been prepared to put national security above partisan politics to address this urgent matter. and i was surprised this morning to hear senator mcconnell say that he would like a vote on repealing obamacare on this bill.
6:43 pm
that's really not appropriate. some republican senators have said that this matter is going to be filibustered unless they have the right to vote on an amendment to repeal health care reform, and obviously that's it, the republican leader said that. then, mr. president, i thought that might fade away. every tuesday after our caucuses, republicans have one, democrats have one, senator mcconnell and i go here to the ohio clock as it's called and both make a statement and answer questions the press gives us. there's no -- it's not a jump ball, whoever goes first gets to make the first presentation, we wait until the other one is
6:44 pm
not ready, so he goes first, sometimes i go first sometimes, but the important point in the one today is that -- and i'm paraphrasing but the point is certainly valid -- that the republican leader said out here with the entire press corps and his leadership team with him that cybersecurity, i'm paraphrasing, is something we should do but take several weeks to do it. not this week. compare that, mr. president, to the words of general keith alexander, commander of the united states cyber command who wrote senator mcconnell and i today, and here's what he said, this is a quote, "the cyber threat facing this nation is real and demands immediate action. the time to act is now. we simply cannot afford further delay close qoats. -- close quotes. i've tried to figure out a way
6:45 pm
of describing how i feel about this. i said disappointed, and that's certainly true. flux osmed, that's certainly -- flummoxed, that's certainly true. i'm disappointed leader mcconnell and some of his colleagues would prevent us from acting on this urgent threat. i'm particularly astounded they would rather launch yet another attack, for example, on women's health than work to ensure the security of our nation. i have no choice but to file cloture on this matter. i would hope we could get cloture. but i'm a realist as i've learned after having tried to work through 85 different filibusters in this congressional session, i remain hopeful that they'll come to their senses, realize the need for urgent action on this
6:46 pm
matter. there was really an inspirational presentation made in our caucus today by senator barbara mikulski of maryland. again, i'm paraphrasing but i'm pretty direct on what i remember what she said. i wasn't present when senator mcconnell made his statement. senator mikulski said i've served on the intelligence committee for ten years and she said this legislation creates a rendezvous with destiny for our country. we have to do something and we have to do it soon. i have stated to senator lieberman, to senator collins, to anyone that will listen, is -- this is not a partisan piece of legislation, mr. president. it shouldn't be. i'm happy to work on an agreement to consider relevant amendments, but this matter has been pending since last
6:47 pm
thursday. today is tuesday. and basically, the slow walk that i'm so used to around here is taking place. i hope we can find a final path forward. senators from both sides of the aisle have come to me personally and said they've invested time, lots of time in this matter, and they're trying to forge a consensus. i take them at their word but they all seem powerless to buck the filibuster trend we have here. so, mr. president, i hope that when the dust settles here that we can set aside crass politics and work together for the good of our nation and can achieve a strong, effective, bipartisan cybersecurity bill. mr. president, tom donahue, head of the chamber of commerce, is my friend. he really is. but i'm terribly disappointed in
6:48 pm
the chamber of commerce. we started out with having a requirement that business and private sector would be required to do certain things -- things. senator lieberman and collins backed off from that. now it's kind of a voluntary deal. it's much weaker than i think it should be, but why in the world would they oppose that. they meaning the chamber of commerce which has sucked in most all the republicans on this. that is really unfortunate. so, mr. president, on behalf of senator lieberman and collins and others, i call up amendment numbered 2731, which is at the desk, i ask that it be reported. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. lieberman and others proposes amendment numbered 2731. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and
6:49 pm
nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: thank you, mr. president. on behalf of senator franken, i call amendment numbered 2732 which is also at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, for mr. franken, proposes amendment numbered 2732 to amendment number 2731. mr. reid: i have an amendment, mr. president, to the language proposed to be stricken. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment to the language proposed to be stricken by amendment numbered 2731. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2734 to amendment numbered 2733.
6:50 pm
mr. reid: mr. president, i have a cloture motion at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion. we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on s. 3414, a bill to enhance the security and resiliency of the cyber and communications infrastructure of the united states, signed by 17 senators as follows -- mr. reid: mr. president, i would ask unanimous consent the names not be read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i have a motion to commit the bill with instructions. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, moves to commit s. 3414 to the committee on homeland security and governmental affairs with instruction toss report back forthwith with an amendment numbered 2735. mr. reid: mr. president, i ask
6:51 pm
for the yeas and nays on that motion. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have an amendment to the instructions at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2736 to the instructions to commit the bill. mr. reid: i ask for the yeas and nays on that amendment. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the yeas and nays are ordered. mr. reid: i have a second-degree amendment at the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: the senator from nevada, mr. reid, proposes an amendment numbered 2737 to amendment numbered 2736. mr. reid: i ask unanimous consent the mandatory quorum under rule 22 be waived with respect to the cloture motion as has just been filed. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i now move to proceed to calendar number 473, s. 3429. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 473, s. 3429, a
6:52 pm
bill to require the secretary of veterans affairs to establish a veterans job corps, and for other purposes. mr. reid: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
6:53 pm
mr. lieberman: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. mr. president, i rise to respond to the statement of the majority leader. first to say that i share his sadness and disappointment that he had to file a petition for
6:54 pm
cloture on this cybersecurity act, but i totally agree with the decision he's made. i don't think he had any choice. i think we're facing on the one hand an urgent, real and growing threat to our security and our prosperity because we're vulnerable -- that is, the privately owned cyber infrastructure of our country is vulnerable to attack from foreign enemies, from nonstate actors like terrorist groups, from organized criminal gangs who are just out to steal billions of dollars over the internet and from hackers. so we're dealing with a real problem that all the nonpolitical security experts from the last administration, the bush administration and this one, the obama administration say is rising rapidly to being
6:55 pm
the number-one threat to american security over the internet now because of our vulnerability, over cyberspace, a foreign enemy can do us more damage than the terrorists did to us on 9/11. it's that stark. so that's one reality. the other reality is that senator collins and i, senator rockefeller, senator feinstein have been working literally for years on -- as senator reid said, because of the urgency of the problem, we decided we can't just fight for 100% of what we thought was best to protect our security. we pulled back. we made it not mandatory. we have standards being set for the private sector to defend itself and us better, and we're creating carrots and not sticks to encourage them to opt into those cybersecurity standards. that's one reality. the other reality is in our
6:56 pm
government, notwithstanding controversy here, all the departments are working like a team, as general alexander, the head of cyber command at the department of defense said, cybersecurity is a team sport, department of homeland security, department of defense, the f.b.i., the intelligence community all working together to protect our country, but they don't have the tools they need, and they urgently need this bill. yet, the other reality is here in the senate where once again we're gridlocked. we can't even get the consent necessary to take up amendments to vote on. senator collins and i have said all along, just get this bill to the floor, let the chamber, the 100 senators work their will on germane and relevant amendments, and something good will result for the country. so here's the bill on the floor, and yet members are blocking us
6:57 pm
from taking up those amendments. and i am afraid the consequence is that they are running out the clock. a lot of good work done by those of us who have sponsored the pending legislation and a very constructive bipartisan group led by senator kyl and senator whitehouse and three additional members of the democratic caucus and republican caucus have worked very hard to bridge the gaps. we have come closer together, but we're not going to work this out unless we can vote. i wish we hadn't come to this point, but senator reid has made the correct and necessary decision, and it will confront the members of the senate on thursday with a decision, are you going to vote for cloture to at least allow the chamber to consider all the amendments on this bill that are germane and
6:58 pm
relevant, or are you going to say no? i will only settle for exactly what i want, and i don't want this bill. therefore, i am going to vote against cloture and run the risk which all the independent cybersecurity experts in our nation tell us we will run if we don't do anything that will suffer a major attack. or at least we will continue to suffer major cyber effects. so i'm saddened. we have worked very hard on this, but that's not the point. the point is that there is an urgent necessity to pass this legislation. it ought to be nonpartisan. it ought not to be the victim of special interest. it ought to be all of us coming together as we usually have on national security matters to put the national security interests of the american people ahead of special interests, to resolve our differences, to settle for
6:59 pm
less than 100% and to get something done to protect our country, or is this going to be another case where the senate fails to bridge the gaps, fails to be willing to make principled compromises and therefore fails not only to fix a problem but in this case to protect our country from a very clear and present danger of cyber attack and cyber theft. so thursday will be the day of decision. i hope perhaps meetings can occur tomorrow in which we can reconcile our differences and agree on a method to go forward. if not, every member of the senate is going to have to decide whether they want to block action on cybersecurity legislation or whether they want to go forward and consider the amendments on both sides that have been filed. i thank the chair and i yield the floor.
7:00 pm
and i would suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: mr. lieberman:
7:01 pm
7:02 pm
7:03 pm
7:04 pm
7:05 pm
7:06 pm
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
7:09 pm
7:10 pm
7:11 pm
mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. lieberman: i ask unanimous consent further proceedings under quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: strikes me as i call you mr. president i once had the high honor to support a man who shared your name, indeed, your father for president of the united states. so it's nice to be able to call you mr. president. i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with senators
7:12 pm
permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the committee on foreign relations be discharged from further consideration of s. res. 525 and the senate proceed to its immediate consideration. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 525 honoring the life and legacy of oswaldo paya s after rdinas. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. lieberman: i further ask that the amendment offered by the senator from florida, mr. nelson, which is at the desk be agreed to, the resolution as amended be dprood agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motions to reconsider with and any statements relating to the measure be printed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without
7:13 pm
objection. mr. lieberman: i thank the chair. i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 9:30 a.m. on wednesday, august 1, that following the prayer and pledge, the journal be approved to date, the morning business be deemed expired and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, that the majority leader be recognized and the first hour be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees with the republicans controlling the first half and the majority controlling the final half. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lieberman: mr. president, the majority leader filed cloture on the cybersecurity act today. as a result, the filing deadline for first-degree amendments to s. 3414 is 1:00 p.m. on wednesday. i want to indicate to my colleagues that we continue to work on an agreement on amendments to the bill which i
7:14 pm
hope we can reach. if no agreement is reached, the cloture vote will be on thursday. if there is no further business to come before the senate, mr. president, i ask that the senate adjourn under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until senate stands adjourned until
7:15 pm
the alabama abortion after 20 weeks of pregnancy and the district of columbia we are going to see a vote either today or tomorrow and its plan to come up under suspension of the role that means the need to have the two-thirds majority of house members voting for it in order to pass. we don't expect them to get that majority this week. >> why are house republicans bringing that bill how under suspension of the rolls? >> well, it's the really important bill for a lot of life groups, for pro-abortion groups like the national right to life
7:16 pm
committee. the top legislative priority for the entire year. it's an opportunity for the republican lawmakers to vote on a bill that's important to a lot of groups out there and get themselves on record saying they don't support these abortion policies. but they don't necessarily expect it to go in the democratically led senate. so this is more about being on record than it is actually passing the legislation. >> what are democrats saying particularly of d.c. delegate eleanor holmes norton? >> eleanor holmes norton is incensed about this bill. she's been talking about a very regularly on the house floor. she thinks not only is it infringing on a woman's right to choose but with d.c.'s right to governance of and says why are you picking on d.c.? this is an issue that should be dealt with on a national level don't single out my district. >> lawmakers also talking about part of the health care law that goes into effect on wednesday. what is that?
7:17 pm
>> on wednesday the preventive services that are included under the health care law would be provided without co-payment or coincidence. essentially they will be free for millions of people under certain health care plans and things like contraceptive services and also mammograms and screenings for other diseases and just a lot of preventive care services the will be more available. >> web site due to the overall debate in congress about the president's health care law? >> democrats are excited of these professions. they think this is going to be one of the most important parts of law. finally it's getting rolled out some people will see these benefits. before it was a thing you could say it's going to happen leader. now what's happening. we saw about an hour this morning senators on the floor coming out one after another to talk about this is great they are proud of it and excited it's happening but it's also another chance for republicans to talk about why they think it needs to go away.
7:18 pm
spiky mentioned republicans. leader mitch mcconnell released a vote to repeal all. what are the chances that will happen? >> almost basically none at all. they know the senate doesn't want to take a vote on repealing the health care law. harry reid the majority just scoffed this morning when he questioned that they take a vote on repealing it. he said it would be a waste of time. there's more important things to do. there is no way the senate would pass the law. the house voted to do so more than 30 times. >> staff writer for congressional quarterly. thanks for your time. >> you're welcome. thank you.
7:19 pm
>> fired up. ready to go. >> i've heard that line before. >> we are certainly going to be fired up and ready to go. >> yeah, yeah, yeah. >> we've got one, to -- [inaudible conversations] >> the rules committee will reconvene. we have almost a quorum present. i'm told we have a quorum -- >> after a break for house on the floor the house rules committee is back meeting again to set the house floor actions on two pieces of legislation. a re-ride of tax law and extending bushehr and tax cuts. chairman dreier has just gaveled back in. >> obligations this evening and so she has kindly agreed to comply with the rules of the
7:20 pm
house and come back and be with us a few minutes. >> i have to be there. whether that is under the rules of the house a think is problematic. >> mr. sessions? >> it is a rule of the house but thank you for doing this. your participation speaks volumes about the spirit that you have of trying to not only represent the team you fight for and lead, but the team you deeply believe. with great respect to this committee and to you, i do know that you and i had friends with each other as you gave your testimony about the fact of the case, and i think the president should be proud of the record that he amassed. but i would say is there are republican policies and there are republican policies which contribute to the job growth. i was a candidate in 94 who became a candidate in '94 as a
7:21 pm
result of the success and the taking that took place on the tax increase that has been referenced to. the american people should not have, do not have a good memory. there was widespread discontent against the president of the united states and many, many democrats lost as a result of that vote. it did not help the country. it did not contribute to a better economy, and that did not happen until monday four am to 95 when there was a huge battle that ensued with the republican majority and the president. so i think for us to say that president clinton in fact gets credit for it let's do give him credit. and for fairness. but the timing alone and the suggestion that it was his policies wouldn't be correct.
7:22 pm
i, in my opinion. the opportunity for you to be before us today is enormously important, and i have had several discussions by the committee i think expeditiously went through its discussions with our previous witnesses. but i had a discussion with mr. levin -- thank you very much mr. chairman. it was essentially the ernst & young study the was done on the impact essentially of your bill, democrats in the senate as well as your bill, and there were many conclusions that were drawn. but among others, in a plane at an above long haul would fall by half a percent or roughly 710,000 fewer jobs. we are the lowest point in our economy in terms of jobs back to
7:23 pm
who almost 81 levels and i would be less than sincere if i didn't tell you that sure i'm for treating people fairly and that's fairness to me as everybody in the tax code but i'm really all about jobs. in dallas texas where i am from evin to dallas a few times and recognize the potency but in particular dallas drives on the ability to the leading edge in this country. loss of jobs is a tremendous blow to not just small community but also large communities is contributed i believe the demise which we were told some time ago with the effect of the spending president obama spending plan. by the way there's been trouble, not just once, it's been trouble down because it's been added on every year as $800 billion we
7:24 pm
are seeing what we are seeing. what's wrong with this economic view from clearly one of the leading professional groups economists in the country why would you not want to -- let me ask you this way is fairness more important than job creation? >> i don't think the two are mutually exclusive and i would hope we didn't say to create jobs you have to be unfair. >> i don't think fairness is more important than jobs. i think the jobs are not necessarily more important than fairness and we need both in our societies. and i think that this is not about fairness. as i said earlier it's about paying our bills. mr. sessions, you and i have a totally different viewpoint.
7:25 pm
and the reason i call these quotes, and mr. chairman i would like to introduce this for the record. if you read these quotes of mr. boehner, armey, new gingrich, bill archer, bob goodlatte, chris cox, phil crane , in 1993 they said if you adopt the 1993 program the economy will go in the tank and employment will spike. it's been a candidate. is to make it absolutely did not. the deficit went down for years in a row. >> what your? >> '94, '95, '96, '97 and '98. >> and then 98, 99, 2000 and a net 2001 we had a surplus. when i say real surpluses, revenues in excess of social security offsets.
7:26 pm
obviously the social security masked. >> let me talk about republican policies. in 1993 every republican voted against the economic program that's put in place with the assertions that i just put in the record that it would destroy the economy. the point of fact it did nothing of the case and was not changed. that economic policy was not changed. what happened though mr. sessions and fairness to both republican and democratic party the republican party constrain spending. not as much as it wanted. it shut down the government. that didn't work out. but the restrained spending. what they couldn't do what in my opinion is certainly would have done have you had the presidency he would have cut taxes and revenues and as a result, you would not have cut spending enough to offset the cut revenues therefore we would have
7:27 pm
had what we had from 1981 to 1993 exploding deficits and debt as we have from 21 to 2008 and by the way the tax programs the were put in place in 21 and 2003 almost every republican argued to me that it would create a robust economy and great jobs and it did for 60 straight months. >> you didn't tell us at the end of that we were going to have the deepest recession, and frankly mr. love and understood in the case in the last year of the bush and administration you lost 818,000. you were pretty critical of the fact we only gained 80,000 jobs last month. 88,000 in the private sector lost 8,080,000 jobs. islamic was an 900,000 job
7:28 pm
better than the last year of the bush administration. the 900,000 jobs better. not exactly come only 800,000 better performance. so was it to my friend mr. sessions yes we draw different conclusions in the ronald reagan administration we followed the policies that were not changed because reagan wouldn't change them. we did have the '86 tax reform which was the only real tax reform. we did e. eliminate some loopholes and frankly we made some people pay more as a deductive consumer debt in 86. so i tell you my friend that my experience in 31 years has been that it worked for whatever reasons and the theory and 81 and 21 and 2003 didn't. the deficits did explode with
7:29 pm
16 million new jobs so that we did have a positive job growth under of reagan of the 22 million because the economy had grown under clinton so that we could argue all these facts and perspectives but the bottom line is this and i will repeat we would have agreement. the american people know we have agreement. you don't want to. i don't want to. at least in this setting anybody of to to enter the $50,000 or 200,000 single pay any more taxes. why? because i want them to have the availability to grow the economy and grow jobs which you talk about. we had the opportunity to do that. all i'm saying is let's do it. the president said he won't sign the bill. you disagree with that? mr. romney is going to disagree or debate but the fact of the matter is we do know that he will sign the amendment we are
7:30 pm
going to offer which guarantees to everybody under tutored 50,000 as an individual they want a tax increase that gives them confidence they can invest, buy a refrigerator or maybe get a new car because they will have the income available to so. that is my contention. we can debate the nuances of which programs work and which didn't. i think i'm right, using your right. ultimately the american people will make a judgment. i will say this. as angry as you say people work at the clinton administration's you do recall in 1996 he was ready elected. >> i do? >> because the economy was -- >> the economy was. in fact it was as a result. look, you and i, first of all we
7:31 pm
enjoy each other for anybody watching this and i know you have a great relationship with many members on our side of the aisle. >> we do enjoy each other. what i would say to you is my experience tells me not standing this isn't true but it's at least true enough and that is people that i think my question to and $50,000 per worker and those that not necessarily going to create the jobs and those do so because of money that they invest and they invest money so this is a pure and simple equation how we are going to effectively use the money that theoretically would go to the government or go to job creation, which is what the free enterprise system is. it is all about job creation.
7:32 pm
i'm not sitting here are doing a marketing for jobs. and so i strongly believe that the most effective and efficient way to use this money that's fair and the metal is by and large more money would go for the creation of jobs and i think jobs is out of fairness. my sister the you know well told me immediately after president obama was elected that it was all about fairness and i said get ready to be unemployed and within six weeks, she was. in fact i believe the jobs and the opportunity to have a job creates a lot of american dreams more than just being fair about it. >> let me make this comment. i've talked to a lot of people making over to under $50,000 as you have in the last year and a half. they tell me the single biggest thing we can do to create jobs is to get this country on a fiscal the sustainable path and
7:33 pm
the way we do that is to bring down our debt the way you do that is to set revenues at a rate that allows us to do that. and the best among us it's not about fairness, the best among us are not contributing a share that helps us bring that down when they have the ability to do so we are not going to get there. >> i was holding some of my comments for the gentlewoman mrs. pelosi coming and i still well. but i would say this if you are aware of this joint tax you've seen these sheets of paper as the minority leader war has when you are in the majority you've seen is a long time, taxes where this comes from. i believe we heard mr. levin say he believes in joint tax, the work that they do. there is a total over ten years of some $93 billion of revenue that would come in off of this
7:34 pm
tax increase that you're talking about. $93 billion for ten years. >> if you're talking up the difference between two injured 50,000 above its approximately a trillion dollar cost over ten years. >> you read these more than i do every day. >> i think you'll find it's closer. >> you can look at the figures and correct me. my point is i think that the people who were really trying to make a go of this thing recognize it's about job creation. that's how you sustain social security, medicare and medicaid, not for a tax revenue from a few people who are the highest room and come people. it is done through a lot of people who are working so they could drawing unemployment even if that is the quickest way and i will let you correct me because there it is right in
7:35 pm
front of you and you know how to read these things far better than i do but if you look at that is seems to say that those tax brackets if that is how much money would be lost committed than i would put a little circle around it. look all the way to the right you are used to reading these more than nine. see for those ten years he that total. >> but if it is only one year affect. so for the ten years that's what it costs. >> about three years on their it's because it dwindles after that. >> they are scoring the bill for a one-year tax cut. that's what you argue. when you adopted the tax cut it had no cost in the year's out. why? >> you say it dwindles in the next year. it's actually -- it is a tenure
7:36 pm
score. you are absolutely right. its 2013 -- adis tenure -- >> it's a one-year bill which means $93 billion is only over what this tax cut does over ten years. if it were a ten year bill that would be 930. >> perhaps it would be. and perhaps what it would be is it would diminish as things go and it diminishes as it goes. >> you only get the tax cut for one year. >> you see it diminishes greatly even though it is a one-year bill. i get this. >> it is because it is a one-year bill. >> it diminishes over time. >> you and i agree.
7:37 pm
>> mr. sessions. >> i'm delighted you are here. >> any other questions for mr. hoyer? >> i have a question because i know he has obligations he has to meet and is quite busy. you were kind to come back up -- >> i have respect for this committee and its members and certainly for you as well. >> everyone is entitled to ask questions of the witnesses. >> we do not have any rule that requires to come back. skype let me say they're cool states that every member of the committee has the right to ask a question of witnesses before the committee. that's what i'd been told. if you are not under a subpoena you are not compelled to do that
7:38 pm
but we have had people in the committee chair. >> what i do at that time is i asked see the member has to leave are there any questions before the witness leave this? >> very kind of you to come back up. we find this all the time. i would think a reasonable person would understand that after ten years which according to the administration's statement it was the upper end with $850 billion. i do have and an ardent term i will admit that. but the difficulty here to
7:39 pm
explain to my colleagues and with everybody else knows we don't have a great glut of jobs. look where we are today. extending them another year isn't likely to solve the problem. i agree with what you're saying is the most sensible thing we can do and the most fiscally prudent thing that we can do whether we pass the senate has already passed and then move on with the rest of what would be tax reform which would take away all of the loopholes in the bahamas and the islands and a swiss bank accounts and i do believe that fairness matters. thank you very much. appreciate what you are saying. >> thank you. i appreciate those very much.
7:40 pm
jobs are our number one priority. they are very closely related to fiscal responsibility in the country and as i will repeat again, i think we can give a certain degree of certainty and confidence to working americans and take a step towards bringing the deficit down by passing the senate bill which the president will sign. we have to make an h.r. bill on the understand because it doesn't comply because it is a revenue bill initiated in the senate. having said that if we can come to an agreement on that which we agree i don't think anyone on this panel apparently believes that taxes ought to be increased on january 1st people making less than 250,000 on individuals or 250,000 as a family. i think there is total agreement on that and what i said at the beginning is the american people who lament the fact when they are representatives that agree
7:41 pm
on something they don't grab that agreement and go with it because they disagree on something else. we disagree on something else and then publicly resolved in the campaign. >> thank you. >> any other questions for mr. hoyer? >> my mother just text of the me to tell me her power out is her part of the world and i'm sad for that because she's one of your biggest fans. she's going to vote against you if she has the opportunity that she believes your trustworthy abominable and enjoys watching you do what you do. >> what concerns me i think you got the best of the politics. i think you are wrong on the policy. i go back and look at gdp growth after the tax cut and the gdp growth after the bush tax cuts
7:42 pm
in 2003 and the gdp growth of the clinton tax increase in 1993 and as a partial years the clinton tax cuts led to the lowest gdp growth of any of those other. i'll get the individual income tax system 1993 to 1996 individual income tax revenue grew 28.8% as a result of the clinton tax increase. between 2003 to 2006 individual income-tax receipts grew 31.5% as a result of the bush tax cuts and it makes me sad as a freshman to your folks characterize these ideas as either crazy or perfect. clearly both methodologies lead to some change in the underlying economy whether the individuals spend the money or the government, the money spent makes an impact but i do think the record reflects that it is more efficacious but my question -- >> would you yield?
7:43 pm
the one thing pointed to the fact nothing was changed in that 1993 bill and i was one of those i'm glad you don't have a quote for the dillinger you can pick one up and the only person sitting on the committee of the than ms. slaughter who was here in 1993 to actually hear in mr. hastings in 1993 as well so there are three of us that were here. the point that i make is let's remember what republicans and president clinton did with the capitol gains tax rate as we move ahead so there may not have been specific changes to the 1993 tax increase bill. there were dramatic reductions in the tax rates played a big role in that economic growth. stomachs before mr. sherman. the question my mother would ask as she's one of your biggest fans is this america laments the fact we can't just do those things we agree on. i think that you are right about that and they lament that in the context of the health care bill. 80% of which america what if
7:44 pm
every done but americans wanted to push it through their bad way and the transportation bill they can agree so why don't we go ahead and funded the roads we can deal with the revenues that are already coming in and deal with the rest of that leader? >> i wouldn't have characterized that as of the leadership that you have shown over these months. why can't we do those little things that we already agree on? >> i support that leadership. i think we have brought smaller bills to the floor this cycle than the last cycle and there are still some that are too big. will we do better in next time? i hope we will but this sentiment of why can't we just go ahead and do those things that we agree on is that a sentiment that's going to be here for this tax bill or is that the leadership model that you and the minority leader advocate not just for the next six months the next two years
7:45 pm
and beyond? >> very frankly, the next two years and beyond i think one of the reasons i have a good relationship with an awful lot of people on the obverse side of the aisle coming your side of the aisle is i have 31 years to pursue that. this year rating we wouldn't have passed exporting for the bank which was important. i'm not sure why you would have kept the government open of a lot of democrats that are encouraged to vote to keep the government opened twice and make sure we paid our debt so i don't think it is a question of what i would do in the future. it's a record i think i have in the past foreign intelligence surveillance act wouldn't have passed without us working together to make it past because we thought was important to the national security of the country so i would say to your mom the reason she apparently likes me is that she thinks i'm honest and tell her what i think.
7:46 pm
she just doesn't agree with it. >> i would never minimize your contribution. my question was on the smaller items. >> do you have a specific one in mind? >> it should have been a five-year bill i think we all agree transportation's should have spent every penny that was in the transportation trust fund he respected for the we got more dollars and what we did in the transit. >> but when we got agreement from a bipartisan agreement that was embraced by the united states senate which house members know is a very tough thing to happen, we didn't take yes for an answer. ultimately we took yes for an answer we did 26 on the one bill which i think is too short and you and i agree on that. again because of certain key reasons we need to get the economy certainty and get the contractors, states, municipalities and others certainty on the transportation pergamus went before a longer period of 26 months. you and i agree on that. can i say something else?
7:47 pm
you mentioned the gdp. i don't have the statistics in front of me but i do have the statistics in front of me that in the last 12 months of the bush administration we lost 4.6 million jobs. mr. sessions says jobs are important. i agree with that. >> with the gentleman from georgia yield? >> i know my friend is right to say exactly what i said. that is the second year of the leadership to read the second year no policies were changed economically because george bush wouldn't sign them so that is an irrelevant observation because we could not and did not change policy that existed because george bush wouldn't sign any of that legislation. >> i would have said the spending changed dramatically during those years not a nickel was spent during those two years george bush didn't sign a bill
7:48 pm
having that money spent. >> it originated here in the house under the gentleman's leadership. if it happens to be teamwork -- >> it was and one man's operation. >> additional spending paled into insignificance compared to the bush administration abandonment of pay-as-you-go which would have constrained that because the discipline in our system ought to be, and my friends with your side of the nile was then for the 31 years i've been here frankly not much problem spending money its problem has been paying for it. whether it was the war preferred to buy supported both of them so let's understand one another.
7:49 pm
i would also support paying for them. the prescription drug bill which frankly we didn't vote for but we embraced and we are supportive now and we want to make it better and we have made it better in the health care bill. but that wasn't paid for and we just can't go on because the discipline and the system is we want to protect you from terrorists and make sure you have prescription drugs and make sure you are secure in old age but by the way, you have to pay for it and that is the discipline to respect the discipline as the gentle lady said we all sit around our kitchen table and do this exercise as a family and the discipline of the system is you keep that within the family and adult decide you want to spend so much you want to get out of your neighbors pocket next door you can get your neighbor to played the lead to pay for it for you whether it was franklin and says the americans realize they can have benefits that would be the end of the republic
7:50 pm
there was a spending discipline that must be enforced. any other questions for mr. hoyer? >> did he leave your mind? >> mr. waddell did state that while our friends on the other side of the all want to constantly give mr. clinton the credit for all the good things that happened during this administration and the six years of that the administration this congress was controlled by the republicans and under the first last two years of the bush administration, the congress was controlled by the democrats. >> under that rationale, would you agree that the democrats were responsible for the good times in fae etds?
7:51 pm
[laughter] >> mr. chairman i'm a little puzzled. i came in late but i have some guests in town tonight, and i was getting them out of the building. as you know we have to do and i was a little puzzled as to why our other witness is not here. >> ms. pelosi has assured me she is going to be coming back. i'm going to recognize mr. webster and read the rule here. each committee shall apply the five metal during the question and witnesses until such time as each member of the committee who so desires has had an opportunity to question each witness. ms. slaughter is right we don't subpoena members for the committee but that is the rule of the house. >> mr. webster? excuse me? i'm sorry?
7:52 pm
[inaudible] >> i said the rule says that each member of the panel has the right to question any witness who is here. >> thank you mr. chairman to it i would like to relate a real-life story someone can clean with the soldier and 50,000-dollar price tag has been put on the rich than let's see if that is true. 51 years ago my father started our small business and he started leaving a really good job and i was 12-years-old at that time. he took everything he had and put it into a business. he took no salary. my mom worked as a -- she is a registered nurse that worked in the hospital on the nights and weekends she was the secretary during the day. i did the cooking because my sister wasn't as good if a coke
7:53 pm
as of -- a coke as i was. we were in a house that was 1100 square feet, three bedrooms, one bath. i would consider that just regular. we enjoyed it when we grew up. my dad made money in that company and that's what i want to get to the point. there are businesses today that do the same. he made the same amount at that time as related to today he got a new truck for a brand new truck for $1,700 charged $8 an hour to come and check out your air-conditioning unit now it's over $80.6 about a ten to one separation. to enter the $50,000 that's $25,000 in those days and you could buy things for about the same perspective so he made that money. he was a subchapter s corporation who put the money into the business.
7:54 pm
he paid a lot of taxes but he never solved the money. that money he alone was 20,000, and was another 18. this 22 and he kept putting the money into the business to buy trucks and expand the business. he paid taxes on every dime of that money. but he never saw it. it's still 51 years later with my son running that business that money is still there on the books as a loan. so the point is the whole idea of thinking people have made to hundred $50,000 is an erroneous because there are businesses all across this country that took that money and pay taxes on it and report it as income but they never see it. they dumped it into their business to expand and all i want to do this just explain that there is a difference to
7:55 pm
the dhaka different side of the street. it sounds like a lot of money if you don't see. and i was -- i was insulted from our family when the president said no you didn't. yes, we did. and there is one story and it's the story about someone who may have made the same amount of money and these days and members who took the money and never saw it and created a business that could last for three generations to this mix before mr. webster. >> we greatly appreciate your coming back and to think the committee for allowing an amendment and a whole other argument. >> we are not going to do it for the rest of the people. we ought to do it for the 98% we can because we agree.
7:56 pm
>> thank you very much. we look for to ms. pelosi returning a few minutes. she said she would be back for questions for the committee. let me just say again is very clear and i am trying -- what i'm trying to do is to guarantee the rights of the members of the committee to mask any of our witnesses questions which is what this will direct us to do and so i am now happy to recognize my colleague. >> without objection any prepared statement that you have will appear in the record in its entirety and we welcome any brief summary that you might provide. >> thank you mr. chairman. i would ask that the representative statements -- >> this statement will appear in the record. >> thank you. i will summarize his statement and its highlighted in the fact that middle class individuals can plead middle class families and people and vegetables with tax hikes under chairman kent's
7:57 pm
plan. also, the deficit of course with increase and i think you have all the numbers. he laid out the facts and figures in his statement, but that is the basic focus of his statement which i agree with he is doing this presentation on behalf of the congressional progressive caucus along with the congressman. i just want to say i was listening to testimony and the comments earlier from mr. webster about his family business and i agree i was a business owner for 11 years and i had to work really hard to read it was pulling yourself up by your bootstraps but i never could have done that had it not been for the government support and other coming you know, government agencies that were established to help small businesses and minority-owned businesses, and i never could have -- i couldn't have grown my business. i couldn't have been employed up to 400 people at any given time had not been for the support and the assistance and the tax
7:58 pm
assistance and the government assistance through the variety of federal agencies that really helped me in providing that opportunity. some opportunity is what it's about and i think most of the owners want the opportunity and a level playing field. also let me just say currently has a co-chair of the out of poverty caucus i am really dismayed and concerned about the fact that poverty is rising and high unemployment continues to permeate our country when you look at poverty rates in communities of color continue to rise and would now slash programs would protect the health and well-being of poor working families is a cause of concern and i think we also need to focus on not only what this would do to the middle class but
7:59 pm
also for those aspiring to the middle class. and of course, as has been stated earlier it would saddle the nation with a trillion dollars more in deficit and would give once again nearly a trillion dollars to the wealthiest americans while low-income working poor families are living them quite frankly out in the cold. you know, writing this check $160,000 on average to every millionaire in america i hope that it's not done in an effort to protect -- you forgot to protect the 13 million low-income families and nearly 26 million children from a massive tax increase. i don't know how we can actually how you can justify doing that when so many children would be hurt from this tax increase. ..

122 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on